Rankiteo Logo
Rankiteo
Leader in Cyber Underwriting
Loading...
NEWRankiteo Cyber Underwriting Desktop - Score, price, and bind from your desktop
WindowsmacOSLinux
Download

Comparison Overview

LBankLBank
VS
TMF GroupTMF Group
LBank

LBank

., 000000, VG

Last Update: 08/05/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
https://www.lbank.com/
727/1000Moderate

Founded in 2015, LBank is a leading global cryptocurrency exchange, serving over 15 million registered users in more than 210 countries and regions. With daily derivatives trading volume of more than $67 billion and support for over 800 cryptocurrencies, LBank is commit...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:502
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1
TMF Group

TMF Group

Luna ArenA, Herikerbergweg 238, , Amsterdam , North Holland, NL, 1101 CM

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.tmf-group.com
789/1000Fair

We provide employee, financial and legal administration so that firms can invest and operate safely around the world. TMF Group is a single global team with over 11,000 colleagues in more than 125 offices across 87 jurisdictions, covering 92% of world GDP and 95% of F...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:10,939
Subsidiaries:2
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
LBank

LBank

-
ISO 27001Not verified
ISO 27001
-
SOC2 Type 1Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
-
SOC2 Type 2Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
-
GDPRNot verified
GDPR
-
PCI DSSNot verified
PCI DSS
-
HIPAANot verified
HIPAA
TMF Group

TMF Group

-
ISO 27001Not verified
ISO 27001
-
SOC2 Type 1Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
-
SOC2 Type 2Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
-
GDPRNot verified
GDPR
-
PCI DSSNot verified
PCI DSS
-
HIPAANot verified
HIPAA

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Avg (This Year)

LBank has 46.24% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for TMF Group in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - LBank (X = Date, Y = Severity)

LBank cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Incident History - TMF Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)

TMF Group cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
LBank

LBank

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
LBABANBAN1778235868
TMF Group

TMF Group

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

Between LBank company and TMF Group company, which one has the best AI Cybersecurity Score ?
Between LBank company and TMF Group company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents in the past ?
Between LBank company and TMF Group company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents this year ?
Between LBank company and TMF Group company, which one has experienced at least one ransomware attack ?
Between LBank company and TMF Group company, which one has experienced at least one data breach ?
Between LBank company and TMF Group company, which one has experienced at least one targeted cyberattack ?
Between LBank company and TMF Group company, which one has experienced at least one vulnerability ?
Between LBank company and TMF Group company, which one holds the most compliance certifications ?
Between LBank company and TMF Group company, which one holds the fewest compliance certifications ?
Between LBank company and TMF Group company, which one has the most subsidiaries ?
Between LBank company and TMF Group company, which one has the largest number of employees ?
Between LBank and TMF Group, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 1 certifications ?
Between LBank and TMF Group, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 2 certifications ?
Which company is ISO 27001 certified - LBank or TMF Group ?
Which company is PCI DSS compliant - LBank or TMF Group ?
Between LBank and TMF Group, which company complies with HIPAA regulations for healthcare data ?
Between LBank and TMF Group, which company complies with GDPR requirements ?

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-57995
SUMMARY

phpMyFAQ before 4.1.5 contains a privilege escalation vulnerability in GroupController::updatePermissions that allows GROUP_EDIT administrators to grant arbitrary rights to groups without verifying they hold those rights themselves. A delegated administrator can exploit this by assigning high-value permissions to a group they belong to, inheriting those rights and escalating privileges up to full administrative control.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-30
UPDATED
Date2026-06-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-56777
SUMMARY

n8n before 2.25.7 and 2.26.x before 2.26.2 contains an abstract syntax tree (AST) security validator bypass in the Python Code node. An authenticated user with permission to create or modify workflows containing a Python Code node can bypass the validator and access the task executor module namespace. The issue only affects self-hosted instances where the Python Task Runner is enabled; where N8N_BLOCK_RUNNER_ENV_ACCESS is configured to allow it, this can disclose environment variables accessible to the task runner process.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-30
UPDATED
Date2026-06-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/SC:L/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.1
CVE-2026-56700
SUMMARY

Grav CMS before 2.0.0-beta.2 contains multiple code-execution vulnerabilities. Three unsafe unserialize() calls - in Scheduler\JobQueue, Framework\Cache\Adapter\FileCache, and Session - deserialize untrusted data without restricting allowed classes, enabling PHP object injection and, via a gadget chain, arbitrary code execution where an attacker controls the serialized input. Additionally, InstallCommand's git clone operation passes the branch, url, and path parameters into a shell command without escaping, allowing OS command injection via plugin/theme installation (which requires admin access). A Twig security blocklist bypass (server-side template injection) is also present. The issues are fixed in 2.0.0-beta.2.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-30
UPDATED
Date2026-06-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-56415
SUMMARY

Storage Concentrator (SC & SCVM) contains a command injection vulnerability within the debug.pl script that is reachable without authentication. A remote attacker can submit a specially crafted HTTP request containing a malicious payload that is processed without adequate input sanitization, resulting in arbitrary command execution with root-level privileges on the underlying system.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-30
UPDATED
Date2026-06-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 10)
CVSS3
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:L/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-56413
SUMMARY

Storage Concentrator (SC & SCVM) contains a command injection vulnerability in the ms_service.pl service, which listens on TCP port 9000 by default and accepts custom network packets to perform device actions. An unauthenticated remote attacker can send a specially crafted packet containing a malicious payload that is processed without adequate sanitization, resulting in arbitrary command execution with root-level privileges.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-30
UPDATED
Date2026-06-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 10)
CVSS3
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:L/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9